Christ with children by Carl Heinrich Bloch

The verse is important in that it gives a clear argument against divorce. At this time only a man could initiate a divorce. Jesus makes clear that while the divorce may not adversely affect him, it is forbidden because it forces his wife into sin. Some scholars believe that since in this era a woman had few legal rights, she was dependent on her husband for survival. It was thus assumed that a divorced woman would always remarry. Jesus makes clear that the sin of divorce is in the adulterous nature of a future remarriage, and thus in many jurisdictions where divorce was legal restrictions were still placed on remarriage. This verse does not say whether a second marriage for a divorced man would also be adulterous, but Matthew 19:9 makes clear that it is.^[7] This reasoning also explains the logic of the exception for adultery. If the reason to stay married is to not force one’s wife to engage in an adulterous second marriage, then if she has already engaged in adultery on her own this justification disappears.

The reasons Jesus imposed these new rules have also been much discussed. Some scholars feel that under the liberal divorce policy of Hillel men had been marrying woman and then casually divorcing them after they lost interest, deeply injuring the women. As mentioned a divorce could endanger a woman’s very survival. Thus some have read Jesus’ teachings here as a defence of the rights of the downtrodden wives. Feminist scholar Levine rejects this view. She notes that in this era elaborate prenuptial agreements were negotiated prior to every marriage, and that they invariably included steep financial penalties, known as ketubah, paid by the husband in case of divorce, guaranteeing the wife financial well being even in case of divorce.^[8]

+++

Concerning divorce and children
Equality of wife and husband
Mark 10:1-16

1. Opening prayer

Lord Jesus, send your Spirit to help us to read the Scriptures with the same mind that you read them to the disciples on the way to Emmaus. In the light of the Word, written in the Bible, you helped them to discover the presence of God in the disturbing events of your sentence and death. Thus, the cross that seemed to be the end of all hope became for them the source of life and of resurrection.
Create in us silence so that we may listen to your voice in Creation and in the Scriptures, in events and in people, above all in the poor and suffering. May your word guide us so that we too, like the two disciples from Emmaus, may experience the force of your resurrection and witness to others that you are alive in our midst as source of fraternity, justice and peace. We ask this of you, Jesus, son of Mary, who revealed to us the Father and sent us your Spirit. Amen.

2. Reading

a) A key to the reading:

In the text of today’s liturgy, Jesus gives advice concerning the relationship between wife and husband and between mothers and children. In those days, many people were excluded and marginalized. For instance, in the relationship between husband and wife, male domination prevailed. The wife could not take part, did not have equal rights with the husband. In their relationship with the children, the “little” ones, there was a “scandal” that was the cause of the loss of faith in many of them (Mark 9:42). In the relationship between husband and wife, Jesus commanded the greatest equality. In the relationship between mothers and children, he commanded the greatest warmth and tenderness.

b) A division of the text as an aid to reading:

Mark 10:1: Geographical information;
Mark 10:2: The Pharisees’ question concerning divorce;
Mark 10:3-9: Discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees concerning divorce;
Mark 10:10-12: Conversation between Jesus and the disciples concerning divorce;
Mark 10:13-16: Jesus commands warmth and tenderness between mothers and children.

c) The Text:

1 And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again; and again, as his custom was, he taught them. 2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one.’ So they are no longer two but one. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
13 And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them.(Picture) 14 But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” 16 And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them.

3. A moment of prayerful silence

so that the Word of God may penetrate and enlighten our life.

4. Some questions

to help us in our personal reflection.

a) What was the point that you liked best and which most drew your attention?
b) How does the wife’s position appear in the text?
c) How did Jesus wish the relationship between husband and wife to be?
d) What concerned the mothers who brought their children to Jesus?
e) What was Jesus’ reaction?
f) What practical teaching can we draw from the children?

5. A key to the reading

for those who wish to go deeper into the theme.

a) Comment

Mark 10:1: Geographical information
The author of Mark’s Gospel makes a habit of placing detailed events or brief geographical information within the narrative. For those who listened to a long narrative without a book in hand, such geographical information helped the understanding of the reading. These are like reference points that maintain the continuity of the narrative. Frequently in Mark, we find information such as “Jesus was teaching” (Mark 1:22.39; 2:2.13; 4:1; 6:2.6:34).

Mark 10:1-2: The Pharisees’ question concerning divorce
The question is crafty. It puts Jesus to the test: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” This shows that Jesus held a different opinion contrary to that of the Pharisees of whom this question was never asked. They do not ask whether it is lawful for the wife to divorce her husband. This never crossed their minds. This is a clear sign of strong male domination and of marginalisation of the wife in the social life of the times.

Mark 10:3-9: Jesus’ reply: a man cannot divorce his wife
Instead of replying, Jesus asks: “What did Moses command you?” The Law allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to put the wife away (Dt 24:1). This permission shows the domination of the male. The husband could divorce his wife but the wife did not have the same right. Jesus explains that Moses acted thus because of the hardness of heart of the people, however, God’s intention was different when he created human beings. Jesus goes back to the Creator’s intention (Gn 21:27 e Gn 2:24) and he denies the husband the right to divorce his wife. He establishes on earth the right of the husband towards his wife and orders the greatest equality.

Mark 10:10-12: Equality between husband and wife
When they go home, the disciples ask him again concerning this matter of divorce. Jesus draws conclusions and reaffirms equality of rights and duties between husband and wife. Matthew’s Gospel (cf. Mt 19:10-12) gives an explanation of a question put by the disciples concerning this theme. They say: “If this is how things are between husband and wife, it is not advisable to marry”. They prefer not to get married rather than get married without the privilege of dominating the wife. Jesus goes deeper into the matter. He presents three cases when a person may not get married: (1) impotence, (2) castration and (3) for the sake of the Kingdom. However, not getting married because one does not wish to lose dominion on the wife, is inadmissible in the new Law of love! Both marriage and celibacy have to be at the service of the Kingdom and not at the service of selfish interests. Neither can be reason for keeping male domination of the husband over the wife. Jesus presents a new type of relation between the two. It is not lawful in marriage for a man to dominate the wife or vice versa.

Mark 10:13: The disciples prevent the mothers to draw near with their children
Some people brought their children so that Jesus may caress them. The disciples tried to prevent this. Why would they want to prevent this? The text does not tell us. According to ritual customs of the time, small children with their mothers, lived in an almost permanent state of legal impurity. Jesus would become impure if he touched them. Probably the disciples prevent Jesus from touching them so as not to become impure.

Mark 10:14-16: Jesus reprehends the disciples and welcomes the children
Jesus’ reaction teaches the opposite: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them!” He embraces the children, welcomes them and places his hand over them. When it a question of welcoming someone and promoting fraternity, Jesus is not worried about the laws of purity, he is not afraid of transgressing. His gesture teaches us: “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it!” What does this sentence mean? 1) A child receives everything from his father. He does not merit that which he receives, as long as he lives in this gratuitous love. 2) Fathers receive children as gifts from God and treat them with care. Fathers are not concerned with holding dominion over their children, but with loving them and educating them so as to fulfil themselves!

b) Added information for a better understanding of the text

• Jesus welcomes and defends the life of the little ones

On several occasions, Jesus insists on the welcome due to little ones, to children. “Anyone who welcomes one of these little children in my name, welcomes me” (Mark 9:37). If anyone gives so much as a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is a disciple, then I tell you solemnly, he will most certainly not lose his reward (Matthew 10:42). He asked that no one despise the little ones (Matthew 18:10). At the last judgement the just will be welcomed for having given food “to one of the least of these brothers of mine” (Matthew 25:40).
In the Gospels the expression “little ones” (in Greek elachistoi, mikroi or nepioi). Sometimes means “children”, sometimes those excluded from society. It is not easy to differentiate. Sometimes that which is “little” is the “child” and no one else. The child belongs to a category of “little”, of excluded. Having said this, it is not easy to discern that which originates from the time of Jesus and that which originates from the communities when the Gospels were written. Taking this into consideration, we can arrive at the context of exclusion that flourished at that time and the picture that existed of Jesus in the first communities: Jesus takes the side of the little ones, of the excluded, and takes on their defence. It is impressive when we look at all that Jesus did in defence of the life of children, of the little ones.

To welcome and not to scandalise. This is one of Jesus’ hardest words against those who give scandal to little ones, that is, those who are the reason for them not to believe in God. For these, it would be better if a millstone were hung around their necks and that they throw themselves to the bottom of the sea (Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2; Matthew 18:6).

To welcome and to touch. The mothers with their children in their arms drew near to Jesus to ask for a blessing. The apostles told them to go elsewhere. To touch means to contract impurity. Jesus is not troubled as they are. He corrects the disciples and welcomes the mothers and their children. He touches them and embraces them. “Let the little children alone and let them come to me; do not stop them!” (Mark 10:13-16; Matthew 19: 13-15).

To identify oneself with the little ones. Jesus identifies with the children. Whoever welcomes a child, “welcomes me” (Mark 9:37). “In so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:40).

To become a child once more. Jesus asks that the disciples become children again and accept the kingdom like a child. Failing that, it is impossible to enter the Kingdom of God (Mark 10:15; Matthew 18:3; Luke 9:46-48). Let the child be the teacher of the adult This was not usual. We are used to the opposite.

To defend the right of those who cry. When Jesus entered the temple and upset the tables of the money changers, it was the children who cried. “Hosanna to the son of David” (Matthew 21:15).Jesus was criticised by the chief priests and the scribes, but he defended them and in their defence he quotes Scripture (Mt 21:16).

To be thankful for the Kingdom present in children. Great is Jesus’ joy when he hears that children, the little ones, have understood the things of the Kingdom proclaimed to the peoples. “ I thank you Father!” (Mt 11:25-26) Jesus recognises that the little ones understand better the things of the Kingdom than the doctors.

To welcome and to care for. Many are the children He welcomes, cares for or resurrects: the twelve year old daughter of Jairus (Mk 5:41-42), the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mk 7:29-30), the son of the widow of Naim (Lk 7:14-15) the young epileptic (Mk 9:25-26), the son of the Centurion (Lk 7:9-10), the son of the public administrator (Jn 4:50), the young lad with five loaves and two fishes (Jn 6:9).

• The context of our text in Mark’s Gospel

Our text (Mk 10:1-16) is part of a long instruction given by Jesus to his disciples (Mk 8:27 to 10:45). At the beginning of this instruction, Mark places the healing of the anonymous blind man of Bethsaida in Galilee (Mk 8:22-26); at the end, the healing of the blind Bartimaeus of Jerico in Judea (Mk 10:46-52). The two healings are symbolical of that which will take place between Jesus and his disciples. The disciples too were blind since “they had eyes that do not see” (Mk 8:18). They had to regain their sight; they had to let go of ideology that prevented them from seeing clearly; they had to accept Jesus as He was and not as they wanted him to be. This long instruction aims at curing the blindness of the disciples. It is like a brief guide, a kind of catechism, using Jesus’ own words. The following sequence shows the scheme of the instruction:

The healing of a blind man 8:22-26
1st proclamation 8:27-38
Teaching the disciples concerning the Servant Messiah 9:1-29
2nd proclamation 9:30-37
Teaching the disciples concerning conversion 9:38 to 10:31
3rd proclamation 10:32-45
Healing of Bartimaeus the blind man 10:46-52

As we can see, the teaching consists of three proclamations of the Passion Mk 8:27-38; 9:30-37; 10:32-45. Between the first and second proclamation we have a series of teachings to help us understand that Jesus is the Servant Messiah (Mk 9:1-29). Between the second and third proclamations we have a series of teachings that clarify the kind of conversions required at various levels of life in order to accept Jesus as the Servant Messiah (Mk 9:38 to 10:31). The background of the teachings is the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. From the beginning to the end of this long instruction, Mark says that Jesus is on a journey to Jerusalem (Mk 8:27; 9:30.33; 10:1.17.32), where he will meet the cross.

Each of the three proclamations concerning the Passion is accompanied by gestures and words of incomprehension on the part of the disciples (Mk 8:32; 9:32-34; 10:32-37), and by directives from Jesus, which comment on the lack of comprehension of the disciples and teaches them how they must behave (Mk 8:34-38; 9:35-37; 10:35-45). A full understanding of Jesus’ teaching is not achieved only through theoretical instruction, without any practical compromise, walking with him on the journey of Service, from Galilee to Jerusalem. Those who wish to uphold Peter’s idea, that of a glorious Messiah without the cross (Mk 8:32-33), they will understand nothing, much less will they have the authentic attitude of willing disciples. They will go on being blind, seeing people as trees (Mk 8:24). Without the cross it is not possible to understand who Jesus is and what it means to follow Jesus. The journey of the teaching is a journey of surrender, of abandonment, of service, of availability and acceptance of the conflict, knowing that there will be a resurrection. The cross is not a casual incident, up to a certain point on the journey. It is an organised world coming from selfishness. Only love and service can be crucified! Whoever makes of his life a service for others, inconveniences those who snatch the privileges, and suffers.

6. Psalm 23 (23)

The Lord is my Shepherd, climbing Calvary

The Lord is my shepherd,
I shall not want;
he makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters;
he restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

-Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil;
for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me
in the presence of my enemies;
thou anointest my head with oil, my cup overflows.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life;
and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

7. Final Prayer

Lord Jesus, we thank for the word that has enabled us to understand better the will of the Father. May your Spirit enlighten our actions and grant us the strength to practice that which your Word has revealed to us. May we, like Mary, your mother, not only listen to but also practise the Word. You who live and reign with the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen.

voting is an important moral responsibility. I try to outline how Catholics must exercise this responsibility in my latest In Depth Analysis: The Dangers of Voting Your Heart: An Intrinsically Moral Guide.

I’m also happy to report that Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, made the same point in his recent teaching that repudiation of intrinsic moral evils must be the voter’s first priority: Bishop Paprocki: voting for candidate who supports intrinsic evils jeopardizes one’s salvation.

At the same time, Catholics must realize that in democratic societies, the fundamental moral problems of politics are always widespread spiritual and cultural problems before they are political. Thus they require spiritual and cultural solutions. So I raise another key question this week: How Much Does Politics Matter?

Charles Chaput, whose blunt speech and strong leadership style made him both a celebrated and a controversial figure for almost fifteen years in Denver, was installed as the ninth Archbishop of Philadelphia on September 8, 2011. To say the very least, he’s had a tumultuous first year on the job.

The very day Chaput arrived, he was informed that the archdiocese’s chief financial officer, Anita Guzzardi, had been suspended. She would later plead guilty to embezzling almost $1 million over a decade, to support a gambling addiction. The experience hinted at two constants Chaput has faced — scandal and red ink.

The past twelve months have also brought:

• The trial of Monsignor William Lynn, which ended in the first-ever conviction of a church official not for sexually abusing a minor, but for allegedly covering it up. Lynn was sentenced to 3 to 6 years in prison, and is behind bars while the case is on appeal.
• Review of the cases of 27 priests suspended after a damning 2011 Grand Jury report on the handing of sex abuse allegations. So far, seven priests have been permanently removed from ministry by Chaput, seven have been reinstated, and one has died, while decisions are pending for the rest.
• Serious financial shortfalls, with a deficit for next year projected at $6 million, something Chaput says he can afford only because he’s selling off the historic 13,000 square foot archbishop’s residence.
• An announcement that the Vatican’s next “World Meeting of Families” will be held in Philadelphia, which means the honor of a papal visit, but also a steep challenge for a cash-starved archdiocese — not to mention the risk that it could easily be perceived, in the context of American debates, as a massive anti-gay marriage rally.
• Teachers at Philadelphia’s Catholic high schools were on strike when Chaput arrived, and while that dispute was settled, hard questions remain — including the viability of a new “Faith in the Future Foundation,” a lay body hired by Chaput to run his high schools.

2012 is also an election year and Pennsylvania is a battleground state, putting the robustly political Chaput at the center of national attention. To top things off, Chaput, who will turn 68 on Sept. 26, is also scheduled to have knee replacement surgery in December, addressing a decade-long problem that’s making it hard for him to walk, even to stand.

One year ago, Chaput gave an exclusive interview to NCR in which he spoke about his anxieties regarding the new job. Twelve months later, Chaput sat down with NCR again to review what the past year has brought.

CHAPUT TAKES COMMAND

http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/chaput-philly-swims-against-nostalgia-and-red-ink

Both Vice-President Joseph Biden and President Barack Obama have said that their positions regarding same-sex marriage have evolved. When you are “evolving,” you should really watch your grammar. Otherwise, people might suspect you are devolving instead.

Take for instance, the hapless Joe Biden’s pronouncement of why he supports same-sex marriage. It’s all a matter of “who do you love.” His statement is both substantively and grammatically incorrect. It should, of course, be “whom do you love”. “You” is the subject and “whom” is the object of the verb “love.” Biden’s grammatical error reveals the problem with same-sex marriage. It has two subjects without an object.

What is the object of marriage? It is for two to become one flesh. Anatomically and morally, only a man and a woman can do this. Only spousal love is properly sexual for only it provides for the protection of that at which the marital act aims both in its unitive and procreative senses.

But what about “love”? Isn’t it a bit mean-spirited not to allow people who love each other to get married, even if they are of the same gender? Love always seeks the well-being of the loved one. This is true in all sorts of love, whether between parents and children, between children themselves, or between friends. Sexualizing the love in these relationships would be profoundly mistaken since none of these loving relationships is or could be spousal in character.

Therefore, sex between parents and children, between siblings, or between unmarried friends, or between friends of the same gender is objectively disordered and will inflict harm on the parties involved no matter how they “feel.” This is the opposite of seeking the loved one’s well-being.

Biden is now telling the country that this is not so – that if one man loves another man, sexualizing that love in the form of an act of sodomy is not only not harmful, but provides a sound moral basis for marriage. That is why Biden is in favour of sanctifying sodomy.

How does one evolve into this curious position? One undertakes what Nietzsche called the transvaluation of values. In other words, you take Christianity and dump it on its head and turn it into its opposite, while calling it the same thing. Let’s consider how President Obama “evolved” in this way. On September 25, 2004, Obama said:

“I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

Indeed, that is what Christianity teaches. One wonders what in Christianity is inconsistent with his political views. How are his political views formed? Are they consistent with moral philosophy? Is the judgment of moral philosophy, as in a work like Aristotle’s The Ethics or in Socrates’ condemnation of sodomy, inconsistent with Christian teaching on same-sex marriage? Why doesn’t Obama’s moral reasoning lead him in the same direction as his Christian faith?

In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama gives us a clue. He writes that:

“Implicit in [the Constitution's] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or ‘ism,’ and any tyrannical consistency that might block future generations into a single, unalterable course…”

In other words, truth leads to tyranny. Truth does not set you free; it imprisons. Moral relativism sets you free. Then you can do what you want.

But it is absurd for him to say that the Founders of the United States did not believe in absolute truths. Had this been so, there would have been no Declaration of Independence (“we hold these truths…”) and no Constitution. Obama is reading his own moral relativism back into the document and then trying to use it to legitimize the very opposite of what it proclaims.

Here is another example. On January 28, 2010, during a town hall meeting at the University of Tampa, Obama said:

“My belief is that a basic principle in our Constitution is that if you’re obeying the law, if you’re following the rules, that you should be treated the same, regardless of who you are. I think that principle applies to gay and lesbian couples.”

Only a moral relativist would or could read same-sex marriage back into the Constitution. What Obama is really proposing to do is change the rules so that those who are not following them can have their own special set of rules. So, in the name of equality before the law – a sound constitutional principle – he denies equality before the law.

This all leads to Obama’s striking statement on Wednesday, May 9. Here it is with the personal pronouns italicized:

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbours when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

Ten personal pronouns or the word “my” in one sentence. That is an impressive feat of solipsism that undergirds the moral relativism that authorizes what “is important for me” as the standard by which to judge what is right and wrong. Abraham Lincoln said that there is no right to do what is wrong. Obama and Biden are complicit in making a wrong a “right.”

The transvaluation of values requires more than the denial of objective morality. It requires that the negation – the transvaluation – becomes the new religion. It is the sanctification of nihilism, the Church of Nada. It needs to be sacramentalized, as in same-sex marriage. That is why Obama and Biden insist upon it.

Listen to this final, breathtaking part of Obama’s rationalization. Just as he used the Constitution to justify its opposite, he now employs Christianity in the same way. Christianity, which has unambiguously condemned sodomy for more than 2000 years, is enlisted to endorse it:

“The thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the golden rule – you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids, and that’s what motivates me as president.”

After all, Christ died to make the world safe for sodomy…

In other words, if you would like your moral misbehaviour to be rationalized, you should be willing to rationalize the moral misbehaviour of others. That way, we are all equal. That’s equal opportunity. This is Obama’s new golden rule. The transvaluation of values is complete.

Fear for the Republic. For the truths for which it stands have been taken away by this president.

Robert Reilly has worked in foreign policy, the military, and the arts. His most recent book is The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis.

Is anyone honestly surprised that President Obama has announced his support for same-sex marriage?

Or maybe an entirely different force is at work. Maybe Obama’s position represents a victory for “survival of the fittest,” insofar as his re-election campaign has concluded that open endorsement of same-sex marriage will be a net political gain. By throwing his support to the gay-rights movement, the President will ensure even more enthusiastic support from a large and very effective lobby. Homosexual activists were already likely to vote for him, but now they will be campaigning (and donating) vigorously for him as well. And the President’s announcement costs him very little, politically speaking. Anyone seriously opposed to same-sex marriage was already a near-certainty to vote for his Republican opponent, because everyone already knew where his “evolving” progress would eventually take him.

The Battle of Alexander at Issus

The Battle of Alexander at Issus (German: Alexanderschlacht) is a 1529 oil painting by the German artist Albrecht Altdorfer (c. 1480–1538), a pioneer of landscape art and a founding member of the Danube school. It portrays the 333 BC Battle of Issus, in which Alexander the Great secured a decisive victory over Darius III of Persia and gained crucial leverage in his campaign against the Persian Empire. The painting is widely regarded as Altdorfer’s masterpiece, and exemplifies his affinity for scenes of monumental grandeur.

Duke William IV of Bavaria commissioned The Battle of Alexander at Issus in 1528 as part of a set of historical pieces that was to hang in his Munich residence. Modern commentators suggest that the painting, through its abundant use of anachronism, was intended to liken Alexander’s heroic victory at Issus to the contemporary European conflict with the Ottoman Empire. In particular, the defeat of Suleiman the Magnificent at the Siege of Vienna may have been an inspiration for Altdorfer. A religious undercurrent is detectable, especially in the extraordinary sky; this was probably inspired by the prophecies of Daniel and contemporary concern within the Church about an impending apocalypse. The Battle of Alexander at Issus and four others that were part of William’s initial set are in the Alte Pinakothek art museum in Munich.

Yet you say, `The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has committed he shall die. Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is lawful and right, he shall save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.   Ezekiel 18

 

It is our lot in the Christian marathon to go through suffering:
Philippians 1:29
For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.
Thankfully God has a wonderful purpose in sanctifying us through His chastisement.

Now let us look to Jesus, “the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.” Amen.